The world is going insane, and I don’t mean it’s going insane in some figurative sense. I mean it’s actually, really, literally losing its mind. To be insane is to be unable to distinguish between fantasy and truth, to lose one’s grip on reality. That is our cultural condition. If an entire society could be wrapped in a straitjacket and thrown into a padded room, ours would be a candidate. And perhaps there is no greater expression of this collective lunacy than our devolving understanding of gender.

As we’ve seen, progressives are on a mission to radically and fundamentally redefine the essential pillars of human civilization. We’ve discussed their efforts to redefine human life through abortion and euthanasia and to redefine marriage and family through the mandated acceptance of homosexuality, and now we turn to their war on gender. This assault is taking place on two fronts, advanced by two terrible “isms”: “transgenderism” and feminism.

Ironically, as we’ll examine, these two “isms” are in direct competition with each other, even if their proponents don’t realize it. We’ll talk about feminism and its campaign against the beautiful and complementary nature of the sexes later, but first we have to deal with “transgenderism.” As a side note, I put quotes around “transgenderism” because it’s a made-up word denoting a made-up concept. The prefix trans- means “beyond or through,” and nobody is beyond gender. Our gender is binary. Once again, progressives have come up with a word that implicitly confirms their point and convinced us all to use it even as we contest that very point. Brilliant. But for the sake of simplicity, I will be using the made-up word here, and I will not always put the sarcastic quotes around it. I leave it to you to fill those in every time it comes up.

A SMALL BUT POWERFUL FORCE

It’s necessary to deal with transgenderism first because, for one thing, nobody else will. There are some conservative and Christian voices out there willing to articulate our case when it comes to the sanctity of life, and there are some, but fewer, who will speak up on marriage, but it seems almost nobody will whisper a word of protest when the conversation turns to transgenderism. There’s a lot of awkward silence and submissive nodding and, worse, celebratory applause, but only the softest, smallest, most scattered protest.

Those of us who will protest increasingly feel like the child in the famous parable, shouting that the emperor has no clothes. Only, in this instance, I suppose the emperor is wearing clothes—it’s just that he bought them in the women’s section.

Apart from the random uncooperative subject who can’t yet bring himself to play along, everyone else seems to have surrendered without much of a struggle. We fought—some of us, anyway—when they came to redefine life and marriage, but I guess by the time they made it to gender we were too exhausted to resist. Fine, whatever, you can have it, we all said with a sigh.

Of course, our apathy and cowardice could be partly explained by the absolute viciousness with which the homosexual and transgender lobby defends its lies. And, speaking as someone who’s been on the receiving end of said viciousness on a number of occasions, I can attest that to call them vicious is an understatement.

It’s really a remarkable thing when you think about it. Our culture is so dominated and controlled by—numerically speaking—one of the most insignificant groups on the planet. Homosexuals are already a relatively rare breed, and transgenders are even scarcer. There are a handful of gender-confused people in this country, but their demands and desires defeat everyone else’s, without exception. If you’re a woman and a man in a dress wants to join you in the ladies’ room, you must invite him in with a smile.

This is the power they wield, and it’s why so many of us are reluctant to oppose them—but it’s also why we must.

Why do they wield this kind of power? Why has our culture bowed in trembling capitulation and submitted itself to the fantastical claims of a microscopically small number of cross-dressing fetishists? I think there are two reasons.

First, very simply, our progressives have no more dragons to slay. Progressivism, having run out of battlegrounds, now plunges itself right into a moral and intellectual abyss. It has nothing else to say—it’s already made its point many times over—but because it is, at its core, a deception, it cannot remain still. It must “progress,” in that it must always run left, even when it appears to have run out of room.

Compare this with Christianity, for example. Traditional Christians have been making the same points, taking the same stands, saying the same things, teaching the same moral lessons, and fighting for the same values and the same truths for two thousand years. Christianity is immovable because it is eternal. Christianity does not invent new causes, because its one and only cause has always been truth, and truth never changes. While the liberalism of today sounds significantly different from the liberalism of six years ago, the Christianity of today sounds exactly the same as the Christianity of six hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. Christians must defend the truth against new attacks, but the truth itself, that which is being defended, remains steady, present, and alive.

Liberalism has no truth at its foundation, so it can only keep moving. Christians live in a house built on rock, but secular progressives have no house at all. They are ideological nomads, wandering ever farther into the ether. In other words, they look to dissolve the concept of gender because, well, what else is there to do?

A MENTAL ILLNESS BY ANY OTHER NAME

But secondly, to understand the most important why, we must understand the what. According to the people who come up with these things, a transgender person is someone who does not “identify” as their physical sex. The dictionary tells me that the word transgender “denotes a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.” That sounds like a load of unadulterated, grade A, 93 percent lean nonsense, and it is, but it’s also true that people can suffer from obsessive delusions about their bodies. This is called body dysmorphia, which lies at the root of anorexia and other disorders. A man who feels distressed by his own penis—who feels like his reproductive organs shouldn’t be there, or should be functionally different—probably falls under this umbrella. But the mental health community has come up with a different category to describe transgenders.

Until recently, someone with gender confusion would have been diagnosed with gender identity disorder (GID). GID applies to anyone who experiences a conflict between their physical gender and the gender they “identify with.” Progressives, however, took exception to this medical diagnosis because—to their perpetual shock and horror—it seemed to imply that the subject had a disorder. GID put the emphasis on the subject’s muddled self-image, trying to help them align their perception with reality.

This is terribly offensive. How dare a psychologist insinuate that a man who thinks he’s a woman is actually still a man? How dare he try to treat the man’s mind as sick, rather than his body? Much as they did in 1973, when homosexual activists forced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the LGBT cabal again sprang into action, pressuring the nation’s psychiatrists to end their heinous habit of practicing psychiatry. Ultimately, and yet again for political reasons, the DSM was changed to reflect the politically correct inclinations of our time.

Now GID is gone and in its place is “gender dysphoria,” a condition—don’t call it a mental illness!—that treats the subject’s feelings, not their disordered identity, as the problem. The issue isn’t that a man thinks he should have a vagina; it’s that he feels bad about not having one. Don’t worry, that doesn’t mean his feelings should change to concur with his body. It’s the other way around, obviously. To “treat” these feelings, a doctor can prescribe hormone pills and cosmetic mutilation to align his body to his feelings.

And we’re not just talking about adults. Indeed, if your four-year-old son rifles through the box of costumes and pulls out a sparkly pink princess dress, the medical community will view that as a potential symptom of his latent gender dysphoria. You see, that’s not a young boy being silly and curious. No, that’s a young boy discovering his inner female self. That wasn’t a dress he found in the box—it was his soul! These days, a few more incidents like that might be enough to convince a doctor, and some particularly progressive parents, to begin “transitioning” the child into a lifetime of bewildering confusion and silent, crippling anguish.

There have been many recent public cases of a prepubescent child—usually a boy—being diagnosed as gender dysphoric and placed on hormone pills, thereby stunting his growth, delaying puberty, and destroying any chance he had of growing into a normal, healthy young man.

In Minnesota—a beautiful state filled with maniacs—the parents of a five-year-old boy recently sued their son’s charter school, claiming he was discriminated against because, they say, the young boy discovered that he was actually a girl, and when he came to kindergarten dressed as a girl, the other students pointed and laughed. The parents took legal action because they claim that the kindergarten class should be teaching the little kids about gender identity and that, at the ages of four and five, the children should already be sufficiently indoctrinated so as not to even look sideways at one of their classmates dressing in drag.

BULLYING IS NOT THE PROBLEM

I must make a note here that might get me into trouble. We hear that transgenders like this poor, abused boy are “bullied.” The other kids snicker at them and say unkind things and so forth. We’re told that this is a troubling sign about our youth. But I would suggest that the opposite might be the case. I submit that it is much more dangerous to live in a culture in which kids are not laughing at a boy dressed in girls’ clothes.

After all, there are only two reasons why a kid would refrain from pointing and giggling at a cross-dresser. One, perhaps the kid is very mature, very gentle, very kind, very well behaved. This is a good reason. If that’s why they don’t “bully,” I say that’s wonderful. And that, of course, is how we should train our kids. When my kids point or laugh at anyone, for any reason, I discipline them.

But if kids are not openly treating a bizarre and unnatural thing as bizarre and unnatural, it’s likely not because they are mature but because they do not recognize it as bizarre and unnatural. So, while bullying is a terrible thing, it comes, in this case, from an innate understanding that something is disordered, weird, and ridiculous. It’s good to put a stop to bullying by teaching compassion, but it’s bad to put a stop to bullying by teaching falsehoods. And it is most certainly a falsehood that a boy in girls’ clothes is normal, good, and healthy.

The real issue for transgenders is not how others feel about them but how they feel about themselves. The transgender self-identity so often leads to self-hatred, or you might say that self-hatred is what leads to the transgender self-identity. As is often cited by the LGBT camp, the suicide rate among transgenders is tragically high. Most studies indicate that a full 40 percent of gender-confused individuals attempt suicide. This is ten times higher than the rate among the general population. Ten times. Gay activists tell us that gender-confused people are subjected to the aforementioned bullying, which, they say, explains the suicides and suicide attempts. High rates of bullying allegedly correlate with high rates of suicide, so they assume that one must cause the other.

Now, I don’t doubt that transgenders are bullied, and I certainly condemn the bullying of anyone for any reason. I also don’t doubt that transgender kids sometimes complain of being tormented in school before taking their own lives. This is a horrible thing, without question.

But does bullying explain why the rate of suicide attempts is one thousand percent higher among transgenders? Bullying is a common problem, unfortunately. Very few children will make it through twelve or thirteen years of grade school without being subjected to an extraordinary onslaught of teasing and insults, yet the bullied transgender is far, far more likely to resort to suicide than the bullied non-transgender. Why?

Further, if external factors are to blame for the transgender suicide epidemic, why does the rate remain sky-high regardless of the external factors? If X (bullying) creates Y (transgender suicide), shouldn’t there be less of Y if X is less common? Yet that isn’t how it works. The transgender suicide rate remains nearly constant no matter the circumstances, even in tolerant, über-liberal places like Sweden.

The LGBT camp has never shown that the suicide rate is demonstrably lower in more “accepting” environments, because it can’t show any such thing. Trans folks are at a high risk for self-harm no matter where they are, no matter how old, no matter if they grow up in an especially progressive place or some backward Christian cesspool down south.

Even after completing gender reassignment, the gender-confused are still much more likely to resort to suicide. This, again, makes no sense, according to liberal orthodoxy. If they are able to become their “true selves,” the disparity in suicides should disappear, but it doesn’t.

Moreover, the link between nonacceptance and suicide doesn’t hold up when you look at other groups. For instance, suicide rates among black children are up over the past few decades, even though I think we’d all agree that blacks suffered worse persecution in the past than they do today.

It’s clear that transgender people are unhappy, regardless of their circumstance, their environment, or how far along they are in their transitioning process. This is a crucial point, because it shows that progressive ideas benefit no one, and often do the most damage to the groups they’re designed to cater to. Another devastating example of this is the astronomically high suicide rate among post-abortive women. A woman who gets an abortion is six hundred times more likely to kill herself than a woman who gives birth. Again, progressives will punt the responsibility for this staggering figure over to the other side, claiming that these women commit suicide because pro-lifers make them feel guilty and so on, but an honest person must recognize that there is something deeper at play here. When people live by the secular progressive values of our culture, all they find is misery and despair.

THE PRIMACY OF EMOTIONS

Why does our culture contort itself to justify and accommodate something that is so desperately absurd and so egregiously harmful to everyone involved?

Because transgenderism puts feelings above all. In a world where a person can reject his biology in favor of his lust and his emotions, the individual reigns supreme. My self-identity trumps my actual identity. Reality becomes subservient to desire. This is the key. It is, more than any other reason, why our culture has taken up the transgender banner and fights so ruthlessly to protect it. In transgenderism, man achieves his final victory over truth and truth’s God.

No longer do we declare with confidence, “I am…” We don’t want to be so confined and pigeonholed. Instead we say, “I identify as…” What we identify with has taken the place of what we are. In the process, all forms of identity—every delineation and distinction that defines us and distinguishes us from everyone else—have begun to disintegrate.

When you understand the motivations behind the advancement of transgender propaganda, you start to understand why many progressives never mentioned a word about transgenderism up until the past couple of years. When, for instance, Barack Obama launched his unilateral campaign to rid our society of the archaic, oppressive policy of sex segregation in public school restrooms, many wondered why, if he thought transgenders were the victims of Jim Crow–style persecutions, he never said much about them until a few months before his second term expired.

The answer is that neither Obama nor most other progressives over the age of twenty-three actually believe that a man can be a woman if he feels like one. If they did believe something so fantastical as that, it probably would have come up at some point before just now. But these are, despite appearances, largely intelligent and mentally competent people. They know full well that their sex ed teachers weren’t telling fibs decades ago when they taught the now-controversial theory that men have penises.

They realize that transgenderism is science fiction. It is the sort of belief that cult leaders don’t tell the new converts about until they’ve been sufficiently brainwashed for many rigorous months. It’s why the Church of Scientology doesn’t speak openly about the galactic Lord Xenu, who, according to Scientologist theology, stored the souls of seventy-five billion humans in giant volcanoes (or something like that). This is the really severe stuff. The stuff that the cult leaders themselves don’t believe, which is what makes them the leaders and not the disciples.

But progressives in the older generations have adopted transgenderism as their latest cause because it is, for them, a vehicle. It is a delivery system for all of the things we’ve talked about in this book—relativism, secularism, the destruction of Christianity. Make identity itself relative and you will have finally and totally divorced yourself from reality and all of the moral and scientific laws that come with it. That’s what progressives get out of transgenderism. The fact that transgenderism is utter baloney is irrelevant to them.

IT’S A TRANSWORLD

That explains why liberalism has begun to unironically adopt other forms of “trans” identities, such as transracialism, the idea that a white woman might legitimately identify as a black woman, or that a white man ought to be taken seriously when he says he identifies as a Chinese lesbian. Transgender. Transrace. Throw it all in. You can’t pick one and leave the others.

Then there’s transspecies, which isn’t just a concept hilariously invented by South Park. There exists an actual community of people who pretend to be animals and call themselves “otherkins.” As a piece in Vice once put it, “Otherkins are people too; they just identify as nonhuman.” A lot of liberals take these bestial fetishists seriously. They have to, I guess.

Transgender. Transrace. Transspecies. These are different brands of crazy, but they are all fundamentally the same—100 percent comparable, right down the line—and we are witnessing the mainstreaming of them all.

And it doesn’t stop there. You may have heard of the small but vibrant “transabled” community. These are people who feel certain they were supposed to be born legless, armless, deaf, paralyzed, or crippled in some other way. Eventually, if they aren’t given rigorous psychological treatment, they often resort to disfiguring themselves to achieve the realization of their “true selves.” Recently, the world met Jewel Shuping, a woman who was so certain she was meant to be blind that she had her psychologist pour drain cleaner into her eyes.

The LGBT cabal has so far rejected transabled minorities—no doubt realizing that a guy who wants his arm cut off is a little too uncomfortably similar to a guy who wants his penis cut off—but soon they, too, will be welcomed. The transabled are the closest cousins—practically siblings—of transgenders. If a gender-confused woman should lop off her healthy breasts as a form of “treatment,” why shouldn’t a psychologist prescribe drain-cleaner eye droplets to a woman who fetishizes blindness? These situations are exactly analogous. The differences between them are merely cosmetic.

Transgender. Transrace. Transspecies. Transabled. Tolerance will be legally mandated for everyone. There is no stopping the trans-train at this point. All aboard. Soon a man will say he identifies as a legless female Siberian moose with dwarfism and we will be expected to applaud him and promptly provide public accommodations befitting a disabled moose. Soon we will all melt together into an amorphous muddle of ever-changing identity expressions. We will be like mounds of clay. Shape-shifters. Blobs of nondescript androgyny.

SELF-DEFEATING MESSAGES

But the most fascinating part of the transgender/transanything movement is how it so aggressively contradicts almost everything else progressives have said on the subject of gender. We’ve been told for years that “gender is a social construct,” but transgender theory often conflicts directly with that idea. Progressives tell us that gender is a societal invention that imposes certain expectations of behavior and appearance on men and women. Society, we’re informed, oppresses the human person by forcing it to act and look a certain way based solely on its anatomy.

Personally, I think these “gender roles” are often good, useful, and important—we’ll get into that later—but even if I accepted their version of things, transgenderism would still be nonsensical. Perhaps more so.

In demolishing the gender “social construct,” isn’t the whole point to create a society where men can act in ways traditionally associated with women and where women can act in ways traditionally associated with men? If gender is indeed a social construct, then it seems the ultimate goal would be a culture where men can wear mascara and yoga pants and still be considered men. But progressives defeat their own point by next telling us that when a man acts like a woman, he actually is one, which is odd considering they just got through telling us there’s no such thing as “acting like a woman.”

They went from insisting that “social constructs” prevent men from wearing bras to insisting that if a man wears a bra he should promptly get himself a pair of breasts to go with it. They’ve not only reinforced gender stereotypes but given them a power not even the most ardent gender traditionalist would have ever conceived of.

Either men and women can defy these gender expectations, or they can’t. But if defying the expectation is actually a medical symptom indicating that a person might be of the other gender, then he or she can’t defy gender expectations. Progressives tell us in one breath that it’s OK for boys to like pink and girls to like blue, and that we should stop expecting our sons to play sports and our daughters to play with dolls. These are just social norms, they say. We should not subscribe to such archaic notions. But suddenly they proceed to derail their own narrative when they next inform you that a girl liking blue and a boy playing with dolls might actually be a sign that the girl is a boy and the boy is a girl.

Wait. Are colors and toys and sports irrelevant things that have been arbitrarily assigned to certain genders by an oppressive society, or is the color pink so connected with the female identity that a female’s aversion to it is an indication that she isn’t really a female?

Who’s really enforcing gender roles and social norms here? I’d say it’s the people who call a girl transgender if she’d rather join a baseball league than the ballet.

One of the more well-known “transgender” children—only well known because her parents have chosen to make a mascot out of her—is a girl who now pretends to be a boy named Ryland. She “transitioned” at the age of five, after her parents decided that her confused and childish declarations about wanting to be a boy ought to be taken seriously. In various interviews, Ryland’s parents—who ought to be charged and tried for felony child abuse—explain that they determined she is really a he because, among other things, she preferred not to wear girly outfits or have her bedroom walls painted pink.

In saner times, we may have just called the young girl a tomboy. Now we call her an Actual Boy. Her very early rejection of femininity was taken as evidence that she is not a female, sending the clear message that girls cannot reject femininity without rejecting their sex entirely. If anything “reinforces gender roles,” I’d say this is it.

COMPETING “ISMS”

The competition between transgenderism and feminism is even more interesting. Feminists are the matriarchs of modern liberalism, and now they are watching as their movement suffers devastating and possibly fatal blows, not at the hands of conservative Christians but at the hands of men in dresses. Men are now barging their way into the female ranks and claiming not only membership but headship, and feminists are required to shut up and cooperate.

For years, feminists have contended that they can do everything as well as men can. Today, they must sit quietly while the gay lobby explains that, on the contrary, they can’t even be women as well as men can. The mainstream acceptance of radical feminist theory has been, up until this point, one of liberalism’s great achievements. And now it’s all been compromised for the sake of a population that barely exists.

After all, according to mainstream feminist wisdom, there is no such thing as a “female brain” or a “female soul” or “feeling like a female.” By the words of every liberal who has ever said anything on the subject of women’s rights in the past four decades, how you dress, look, think, and feel have nothing to do with your womanhood. Usually it would be offensive and sexist to accuse a woman of acting like, thinking like, or feeling like a woman.

Feminism and transgenderism say two opposing things about what it means to be a woman. In fact, feminists have come up with the term neurosexism to condemn the misogynistic and “pseudoscientific” idea that male and female brains are different. But a man who calls himself transgender claims to have the brain of a female, so how does this work? Do you mean to tell me that the only people who can have female brains are males?

Meanwhile, feminists regularly insist that the absence of a uterus and a vagina excludes men from having an opinion about things like abortion. So a man can’t have ideas about women’s issues because he lacks the correct anatomy, but he can actually be a woman despite lacking the correct anatomy?

How does that make any kind of sense?

A DEGRADATION OF WOMANHOOD

For my part, I agree that a man can never lay claim to womanhood. I also agree that there is such a thing as a female brain and a female soul—and by extension female emotions and female personalities and female characteristics—but the trouble is that female brains and souls are always contained securely in female bodies. A man will never be born with a sloth’s heart or a rhino’s liver or a birch tree’s root system, just as he will never be born with a woman’s brain.

I’m told that white people appropriate black culture when they listen to Young Thug or wear flat-brimmed hats. I’m not sure such offenses constitute cultural theft as much as they indicate possible brain damage, but that’s not the point. If we’re worried about groups appropriating from other groups, I think we need to investigate the practice of calling a man a woman because he cuts off his genitals. If you look closely, you might find reason to consider this an appropriation of womanhood, or worse, a degradation of it.

There is more to being a woman than feminine facial features, Barbie dolls, and frilly underwear. Women are beautiful because they are women. Womanhood is itself beautiful. Women bring something distinct and special to the world. They fill a void and play a role that no man can.

A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which a man does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which a man cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being—all things transgenders can only mimic.

A woman is a woman. She has earned that title. She pays for that title. She suffers with that title and gives life with that title and lives from conception until death and beyond with that title. She is that title. She should not be told that it’s such a flimsy thing that a man with enough money can buy his way into it. It’s demeaning and reductive, and as a father and a husband and a son and a brother, I take exception to it. I can only imagine what women might say if they were allowed to be open about it.

And notice I said I “can only imagine,” because that’s all I can do. I cannot experience a woman’s thoughts or feelings due to the fact that I am not one. I can only be who I am. I am who I am, and that’s all I’ll ever be.

A BIBLICAL REBELLION

Here we see again how our culture’s modern rebellion is really a biblical rebellion. Remember in Exodus when God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”? I believe Popeye had a similar quote, but it should be noted that God said it first. In any case, God declared “I AM,” not “I identify as your Lord today.” He said “I AM” because He is. God exists. God is existence, God is reality. God is permanent, inexhaustible, unending. God is identity.

The origin of our own identity is found in God. The nearer we are to Him, the more we become ourselves. Today, we amputate ourselves from the source of identity and try to become our own source. God tells us to enter into the truth and find ourselves, but we have turned away from the truth and inward, into ourselves, collapsing into the void of the self separated from The Self.

The profound and beautiful truth is that we are ourselves, mind and body. Our bodies are not receptacles containing our souls. Our bodies and souls are one in harmony. Progressivism would have us believe that we can find true freedom—and our true selves—by rejecting our actual identities. But the aforementioned suicide rate of those who take this strategy to its extreme would seem to belie that notion. For a country that talks so incessantly about “self-acceptance,” you’d think we’d understand that joy and peace can only be achieved once we’ve accepted our selves. I’m sure it’s true that some people are born with mental derangements that make it difficult for them to see themselves for who they are. Others might be saddled with different psychological or spiritual afflictions that make them inclined to flee from themselves, claiming to be transgender or transspecies or transabled. We should treat these delusions, but we should not mistake them for insights. These people are who they are, no matter how they feel, just as you are who you are and I am who I am. That’s the message we need to send.

It’s a crucial lesson, yet I’m often urged to leave this whole issue alone and find something more important to talk about. There’s no sense in arguing over identity expression and transgenderism and transwhateverism, I’m told. But you’ll notice that only conservatives and Christians claim this to be an unimportant topic. While conservatives justify their miserable cowardice by insisting that it’s just an irrelevant sideshow and that they’re simply too wrapped up in more serious matters to pay it any mind, progressives continue to treat “transgenderism” as one of the most important cultural frontiers.

Any time a transgender person uses the bathroom these days, progressives throw a parade like the Allies just defeated Germany. Everyone acts like it’s a big deal. As long as they have the “correct” opinion, they’re allowed to. And they’re right—it is a big deal. If progressives can wield the power to demolish and remake even the definition of man and woman in their own ideological image, then they have achieved a total and irreversible cultural victory. They have reached into the universe and reshaped reality itself. They have become gods, or at least that’s the kind of power we give them. You can blab on and on about economics and foreign policy, but if we live in a country where confusion, perversion, and self-worship reign supreme, what’s the point? America will already be dead.

Progressivism has officially declared jihad upon reality. If our culture cooperates—if we relent and concede that science is relative and human beings are gods who can choose their own biological makeup, if the Left jumps over this shark and into the dark waters of full-fledged insanity, and if many in our society take the plunge right along with them—then there will be no stopping liberalism. The culture will be irretrievably lost.

If we willingly forfeit the definition of man and woman, right after forfeiting the definition of marriage, and long after forfeiting the definition of human life, then we will have no basis left to oppose anything else liberalism tries to do. We will have given it everything, ceded to its every demand, compromised on every single imaginable point, and that will be the end of it. All we’ll be able to do, then, is sit and wait for our civilization to eat itself and collapse into dust.

We either draw a line here and make a final stand for objective truth—declaring without equivocation that some things, like our sex, are real and absolute—or else we give up and play along and tell ourselves that truth never mattered all that much anyway.

I have no real confidence that, as a culture, we’ll choose truth. But if it’s ever going to happen, now’s the time. Liberals have made it clear that they intend to finally and categorically reject and outlaw reality itself. Now the question is: Will the rest of us stand up and do anything about it?